15:01:25 #startmeeting fedora-qadevel 15:01:25 Meeting started Wed Feb 15 15:01:25 2017 UTC. The chair is tflink. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 15:01:25 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 15:01:25 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qadevel' 15:01:30 #meetingname fedora-qadevel 15:01:30 The meeting name has been set to 'fedora-qadevel' 15:01:37 #topic roll call 15:01:40 .fas linuxmodder 15:01:42 * pschindl_ is here 15:01:42 * mkrizek is here 15:01:51 #chair jskladan_znc kparal mkrizek lbrabec 15:01:51 Current chairs: jskladan_znc kparal lbrabec mkrizek tflink 15:01:51 linuxmodder: linuxmodder 'Corey W Sheldon' 15:01:59 #chair linuxmodder 15:01:59 Current chairs: jskladan_znc kparal lbrabec linuxmodder mkrizek tflink 15:02:13 * kparal is still here 15:02:25 #chair garretraziel 15:02:25 Current chairs: garretraziel jskladan_znc kparal lbrabec linuxmodder mkrizek tflink 15:02:27 * jskladan_znc left 15:02:51 * garretraziel was here five minutes ago 15:03:13 tflink, please unchair me ( Im in qa but here mostly for educational reasons 15:03:53 how does one unchair? 15:04:16 #unchair 15:04:16 Current chairs: garretraziel jskladan_znc kparal lbrabec linuxmodder mkrizek tflink 15:04:20 #unchair linuxmodder 15:04:20 Current chairs: garretraziel jskladan_znc kparal lbrabec mkrizek tflink 15:04:28 i guess that makes sense 15:05:01 me 15:06:29 https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/20170215-fedora-qadevel 15:06:39 * tflink will translate that to wiki later 15:06:46 wasn't thinking when i wrote that up 15:06:54 so, getting started 15:07:10 #topic Issues 15:07:18 #undo 15:07:18 Removing item from minutes: 15:07:32 #topic Issues - VMs not being cleaned up (T905) 15:07:44 #link https://phab.qa.fedoraproject.org/T905 15:08:24 sigh, not sure this is what we want to start with 15:08:36 * tflink blames 5am meetings for lack of coherency 15:08:54 #undo 15:08:54 Removing item from minutes: 15:08:56 #undo 15:08:56 Removing item from minutes: 15:09:25 now that I've confused everyone ... 15:09:47 jskladan: were there specific things you wanted to cover? 15:09:57 mostly project priority? 15:10:16 yes, mostly project priority 15:10:25 we have some changes to be done on ExecDB and Trigger 15:10:39 I have already put together a document covering my thoughts on ExecDB 15:10:49 #topic Projects and Priorities 15:10:52 (please read and comment, if you did not already) 15:11:04 and I'm now putting together a thing on Trigger 15:11:22 #link https://docs.google.com/a/redhat.com/document/d/1spU0tK7pb4NBWFgY535Nawm1O69z3R928K8os6AAIfg/edit?usp=sharing 15:11:31 (keep in mind that this is WIP) 15:11:43 also it's internal document 15:11:56 The three projects I can think of right now are: execdb rework, CI for taskotron and a frontend for trigger 15:12:18 yay internal tooling! 15:12:35 I'd say that trigger being able to work with Jenkins is a bigger priority than the web frontend 15:12:39 but yeah 15:12:49 * tflink was grouping that in with the execdb rework 15:12:55 should have been more explicit 15:12:55 OK, that makes sense then 15:14:01 jskladan: what are you missing for the execdb and trigger rework to be less dependent on jenkins? 15:14:04 s/jenkins/buildbot 15:14:20 are there any unresolved issues from the document you sent out? 15:14:20 execdb needs complete rehaul, basically 15:14:26 there is no way around it 15:14:33 but it is covered in the document 15:14:41 yeah, I was wondering what was needed before that can start 15:14:47 ah, ok 15:15:13 if we agree on the proposal, then work on that can begin 15:15:20 there is nothing blocking it as far as I know 15:15:44 with trigger, adding jenknins support *should* be as easy as adding a new Runner class 15:15:49 of the folks who can access the doc, any objections to the contents? 15:16:13 jskladan: can you translate that doc to a wiki page or something that can be shared outside of RH? 15:16:22 ad docs - as kparal pointed out, I'll probably re-share those via my personal gdoc 15:16:22 * kparal read execdb doc so far, looks reasonable 15:16:32 so people outside rh can comment 15:16:39 but it can be boilded down to wiki as well 15:16:45 wahtever 15:16:47 * tflink also did not realize that rh google docs can't be public 15:17:00 * mkrizek also read execdb doc, looks good 15:17:14 * jskladan likes the way it allows for comments, but for the "finished proposal" I can easily do wiki page 15:17:37 the trigger doc will be shared from my personal gdoc, so its RH-account-agnostic 15:17:44 sounds good 15:17:47 cool 15:18:23 mkrizek, garretraziel: do you think you can start working on the trigger-jenkins runner (+ the related jenkins bits) soon-ish? 15:18:28 I'd say get the doc available for non-rh folks to comment on and get started on it soon 15:18:30 I see this as the biggest priority right now 15:18:39 jskladan: I have already started 15:19:17 mkrizek: cool, discussed some (maybe non-relevant) details with garretraziel today, hope he'll share it in person with you 15:19:38 jskladan: what about re-running jobs? is that something which will be in excdb, even if not initially? 15:20:00 for job re-runnning, we need trigger to start storing the relevant data 15:20:15 I'm putting together some thoughts on that in the gdoc I posted earlier 15:20:19 ok, I'm not picky about where the re-triggering lives 15:20:27 and then trigger will need an API so it can be done 15:20:42 ExecDB should then have a "re-run" button associated with the job 15:20:57 telling trigger to "just run it again, will ya, sweetie?" 15:21:10 thoughts on time needed for something that's demo-able vs. done enough for deployment? 15:21:10 and from there forward it's just a regular Taskotron job 15:21:21 jskladan: sounds good to me 15:21:47 I firmly believe I can sort out the necessary-data-logging next week 15:21:56 not sure about the api, now 15:22:35 but some demo-able shitty-piece-of-code that just accepts the request and runs the command-line trigger tool with the right parameters 15:22:41 can IMO be done in a day or two 15:23:34 jskladan: mkrizek started working on it and he was planning to do things just as we discussed 15:23:54 (and by "a day or two" I mean "a day or two after the trigger thing is done") 15:24:00 garretraziel: awesome 15:24:25 jskladan: not sure of the api for what? trigger so that it can accept rerun requests? 15:24:49 yes that 15:25:09 RESTful api, that you can hit to say "hey, rerun a job with this UUID" 15:25:44 it sounds like either you or mkrizek are working on a design for that? 15:25:45 as trigger is far from web-app now, I'm not sure how much of work would that mean, but for something demo-able, we don't really care that the "api" and the "actual trigger" are two separate things 15:25:57 tflink: AFAIK I am 15:26:02 #action jskladan to share execdb document in a way that everyone can read 15:26:16 mkrizek is working on "let's be able to run stuff in jenkins" IMO 15:26:16 ok, wasn't sure who was working on it 15:26:20 ah 15:26:34 do we have tickets for this stuff? I know I've been slow about filing them 15:27:42 nope, I'll start filling tickets once I'm done with the spec-documents 15:27:51 (or if there are any volunteers.... kparal? :)) 15:27:59 mkrizek: is there a ticket for the jenkins triggering work? 15:28:27 tflink: it isn't, I was going to create it but got distracted, can do it later though 15:28:27 * kparal is not here, was never here 15:28:37 mkrizek: thanks 15:29:24 so, to sum up and make sure that there is understanding: 15:29:56 the execdb doc looks good so far, jskladan will start filing tickets for it and working on it soon after posting a more public document 15:30:23 the trigger API for re-run stuff will be proposed soon, worked on after execdb's rewrite is more done 15:30:45 mkrizek is working on the ability to trigger jenkins in addition to buildbot from taskotron-trigger 15:31:03 I'd say that the execdb rewrite is up for grabs - does not need to be me doing that - but if nobody wants to, I'll do it for sure 15:31:06 do we know if any plugins will be needed to get jenkins to post status information like we need it to? 15:31:13 makes sense 15:31:48 tflink: the way I see it, the status info is a http-call - could be as easy as adding some CURL calls into the middle of the steps 15:32:09 yeah, just wasn't sure how hard it would be to make jenkins do that 15:32:09 but if there is a more elegant solution... 15:32:13 yeah, should be done the same way as buildbot steps - any command 15:32:20 *could 15:32:31 mkrizek: cool, I'd start with that, and we can make it more elegant later on 15:32:41 agreed 15:32:41 just with more targeted updates in status intead of the firehose coming out of buildbot :) 15:32:51 yes 15:33:11 any comments, questions, concerns about this? 15:33:15 * jskladan wants to burn that code handling buildbot's push notifications into ground 15:33:32 :) 15:33:58 out of curiosity, is the frontend stuff that you guys worked on around devconf abstract enough to be used in these new frontends? 15:34:15 * tflink hasn't looked at the html/css yet 15:35:45 * tflink hopes so, it'd be nice to have more uniform looking UIs going forward 15:35:56 well, it's a bag full of cats 15:36:01 so... no :D 15:36:07 ok 15:36:11 * tflink was hoping :) 15:36:17 I'd like to put some work into making it a bit more universal 15:36:28 anyhow, moving on as we're 35 minutes in and one topic down 15:36:35 but now it is just tons of css edits repeating in all the places :D 15:36:46 sounds lovely :) 15:37:21 #topic Chronic Issues (T905, T906) 15:38:04 T905 is something that can be scripted away for the short term, so I'm not so worried about it 15:38:20 T906, on the other hand, I don't think has an easy workaround 15:38:43 T878 is a possible fix 15:38:44 https://phab.qa.fedoraproject.org/T878 15:38:50 is not "kill depcheck, use rpmdeplint" a nice workaround for T906? 15:38:58 * kparal believes so 15:39:05 +1 15:39:11 +gazillion 15:39:20 +1 for dropping depcheck and using rpmdeplint instead 15:39:28 ok, can we do that soon enough w/ coordinating with bodhi folks? 15:39:39 we of course need to decide whether we want to keep the name or not, and similar bikeshedding 15:39:47 just name it depcheck...\ 15:40:13 no changes in bodhi needed, depcheck dies, kittens are saved, jesus loves you... 15:40:16 good stuff 15:40:20 * tflink is all for getting rid of depcheck so we don't have to worry about it but wonders if it would be more efficient to fix the python-libsolv issue for now and not rush into these changes 15:40:25 I'd not like to see people googling for depcheck and finding our old implementations and then trying to run it locally to reproduce issues 15:41:02 I'll have a look at the libsolv issue 15:41:27 kparal: thanks 15:41:44 AFAIK, this is happening for all the depcheck runs on all the fedoras we're running 15:41:58 at least it's deterministic :) 15:42:10 yeah, it was that last libsolv update 15:43:18 kparal: can you add findings to T906 when you've had a chance to look into it more? 15:43:24 will do 15:43:46 if possible, I'd prefer to change the result names to dist.rpmdeplint 15:44:02 that way it isn't confused with any of our previous incarnations or the releng depcheck tool 15:44:38 we do need to speak to bowlofeggs about any changes to bodhi, though 15:44:43 I'd prefer dist.rpmdeplint.sat - since there are more checks that could be run within the rpmdeplint tool 15:45:15 (naming is discussed in https://phab.qa.fedoraproject.org/T878 ) 15:45:29 we can continue there 15:45:35 sure 15:45:41 * tflink dislikes calling everything sat and pretending that it's a specific thing instead of a class of problems but that ship sailed a long time ago 15:46:07 anyhow, discussion to be continued in T878 15:46:12 and T906 15:46:16 anything else to add? 15:46:21 not here 15:46:41 nope 15:46:52 #topic Update Resultsdb in Prod 15:47:17 the newest resultsdb has been running in dev and stg - any reason not to update prod at the next opportunity? 15:47:35 tflink: if it's not misbehaving, I don't see any reason to wait 15:47:46 yes, let's fix the frontend search asap 15:47:49 * tflink couldn't think of a reason not to but wanted to ask 15:48:27 +1 for update 15:48:55 #topic meta-CI for taskotron 15:49:05 * tflink is still a bit behind on this one 15:49:16 it looks like the self-tests are pretty much ready now? 15:49:21 or at least a base for them? 15:49:42 it's magic and it works, kparal can attest 15:49:47 jskladan++ 15:49:48 kparal: Karma for jskladan changed to 2 (for the f25 release cycle): https://badges.fedoraproject.org/tags/cookie/any 15:49:54 cool 15:50:04 yup, the framework is ready (and working), now we need to actually do some sensible testing. The initial version spins up a job, and checks whether exedb/resutlsdb data appears 15:50:05 * kparal finally installed docker 15:50:24 I assume that the next step is to get it running when we need it to run 15:50:30 yup 15:50:51 IIRC the pagure-git-commit consumer is in trigger's devleop already 15:51:03 cool 15:51:17 it'd be great to get it running on proposed change as well but that can happen later 15:51:33 the actual trigger rules will need to be put together for that task, but it is just a minor issue 15:51:39 and I can do that tomorrow 15:51:40 do we want to do notifications in any different way than relying on FMN? 15:51:57 tflink: you mean for the results of the CI? 15:52:01 I can't think of a better option for the short term, even if there can be quite a bit of lag 15:52:02 yeah 15:52:27 short term, I'd do FMN, later on, we could have some tool that puts comments in pagure based on new results in resutlsdb 15:52:30 or stuff like that 15:52:33 IDK 15:52:46 yeah, there's no project-agnostic API for doing that right now 15:53:00 I don't see it as a huge priority at this very moment 15:53:05 agreed 15:53:07 I'd like to hook up #fedora-qa with fmn, so that we can subscribe to important events 15:53:16 I already asked infra folks how to do it 15:53:21 that also sounds good 15:53:28 anything else? 15:53:39 * tflink assumes not 15:53:49 #topic Test Storage in Dist-GIt 15:54:34 long story short, it's changing again 15:54:52 yaaay 15:54:55 * tflink is writing up a newer proposal, hoping to have it out for comment no later than next week 15:54:58 * jskladan loves me some change 15:55:42 mostly a heads-up at this point - we haven't forgotten, the details just seem to be stuck in endless bureaucracy 15:55:49 and moving on to ... 15:55:55 #topic Open Floor 15:56:00 any other topics to discuss? 15:56:09 with the 5 minutes we have left :) 15:57:48 * tflink takes that as a no 15:57:48 images of cute kittens? 15:57:54 thanks for coming, everyone! 15:58:18 jskladan: NO! CUTENESS IS FORBIDDEN! 15:58:25 on that note ... 15:58:31 * tflink will send out minutes shortly 15:58:34 #endmeeting